• No results found

PROPOSAL SCORE SUMMARY MATRIX

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "PROPOSAL SCORE SUMMARY MATRIX"

Copied!
8
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Cocaine Alcohol

Awareness Program Correctional Alternatives Corrections Management GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE (maximum: § 17) Jacquelyn Baker 16 16 15 Debbie Duke 16 14 16

AVERAGE: 16 AVERAGE: 15 AVERAGE: 15.5 Documentation of Need

(maximum: § 18)

Jacquelyn Baker 18 18 12.2

Debbie Duke 18 12.6 18

AVERAGE: 18 AVERAGE: 15.3 AVERAGE: 15.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH

(maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 12.8 14 13.2

Debbie Duke 14.8 14.8 14.6

AVERAGE: 13.8 AVERAGE: 14.4 AVERAGE: 13.9

Community Involvement & Support (maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 14.2 14.6 14.6

Debbie Duke 15 14.6 9.8

AVERAGE: 14.6 AVERAGE: 14.6 AVERAGE: 12.2

CognitiveBased Programming and Treatment Services (maximum §20) Rehab Services 7 17 6.8 BUDGET PROPOSAL (maximum: § 15)

SCORE: 13.8 SCORE: 14 SCORE: 12

TOTAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORE: (maximum: 100)

83.2 90.3 75.5

(2)

Decatur (24th Judicial District)

Davidson County (Metropolitan Govt. of

Nashville and ) East Tennessee HRA GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE (maximum: § 17) Jacquelyn Baker 14 15 16 Debbie Duke 16 17 17

AVERAGE: 15 AVERAGE: 16 AVERAGE: 16.5 Documentation of Need

(maximum: § 18)

Jacquelyn Baker 14.6 18 17.8

Debbie Duke 18 17.8 18

AVERAGE: 16.3 AVERAGE: 17.9 AVERAGE: 17.9 TECHNICAL APPROACH

(maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 13 13.8 13.4

Debbie Duke 14.6 14.8 14.8

AVERAGE: 13.8 AVERAGE: 14.3 AVERAGE: 14.1

Community Involvement & Support (maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 12 14.6 11.2

Debbie Duke 12.4 15 12.4

AVERAGE: 12.2 AVERAGE: 14.8 AVERAGE: 11.8

CognitiveBased Programming and Treatment Services (maximum §20) Rehab Services 3.4 11 15.6 BUDGET PROPOSAL (maximum: § 15)

SCORE: 13.8 SCORE: 11.4 SCORE: 14.4

TOTAL PROPOSAL

(3)

First Tennessee HRA Hamilton County Hay House GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE (maximum: § 17) Jacquelyn Baker 16 16 15 Debbie Duke 16 16 15 Kay Ulmer 16

AVERAGE: 16 AVERAGE: 16 AVERAGE: 15.33 Documentation of Need

(maximum: § 18)

Jacquelyn Baker 12.4 14.6 13

Debbie Duke 18 14 16.6

Kay Ulmer 18

AVERAGE: 15.2 AVERAGE: 14.3 AVERAGE: 15.86 TECHNICAL APPROACH

(maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 12 11.2 11.8

Debbie Duke 14 14.4 12.6

Kay Ulmer 13

AVERAGE: 13 AVERAGE: 12.8 AVERAGE: 12.466

Community Involvement & Support (maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 9 12.4 14.6

Debbie Duke 14.6 12.4 12.4

Kay Ulmer 15

AVERAGE: 11.8 AVERAGE: 12.4 AVERAGE: 14

CognitiveBased Programming and Treatment Services (maximum §20) Rehab Services 9.6 6.2 4.2 BUDGET PROPOSAL (maximum: § 15)

SCORE: 6.2 SCORE: 11.4 SCORE: 9.8

TOTAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORE: (maximum: 100)

71.8 73.1 71.66

(4)

Hope Center @ Grace Knox County CAAP Madison County GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE (maximum: § 17) Jacquelyn Baker 17 15 _____ Debbie Duke 16 16 16 Kay Ulmer 16

AVERAGE: 16.5 AVERAGE: 15.5 AVERAGE: 16 Documentation of Need

(maximum: § 18)

Jacquelyn Baker 18 14.6 _____

Debbie Duke 15.8 17 16

Kay Ulmer 15.8

AVERAGE: 16.9 AVERAGE: 15.8 AVERAGE: 15.9 TECHNICAL APPROACH

(maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 14.4 13.6 ____

Debbie Duke 14.6 14.8 14.2

Kay Ulmer 14.2

AVERAGE: 14.5 AVERAGE: 14.2 AVERAGE: 14.2

Community Involvement & Support (maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 5.2 12.4 ______

Debbie Duke 0 12.4 12.4

Kay Ulmer 15

AVERAGE: 2.6 AVERAGE: 12.4 AVERAGE: 13.7

CognitiveBased Programming and Treatment Services (maximum §20) Rehab Services 2.8 4 4 BUDGET PROPOSAL (maximum: § 15)

SCORE: 14.4 SCORE: 13.8 SCORE: 10.4

TOTAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORE: (maximum: 100)

(5)

Mid-Cumberland HRA

Montgomey/Robertson

County Project WIT

GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE (maximum: § 17) Jacquelyn Baker 17 17 16 Debbie Duke 16 14 15 Kay Ulmer 16

AVERAGE: 16.5 AVERAGE: 15.5 AVERAGE: 15 Documentation of Need

(maximum: § 18)

Jacquelyn Baker 18 18 16.6

Debbie Duke 18 18 16

Kay Ulmer 15.8

AVERAGE: 18 AVERAGE: 18 AVERAGE: 16.4 TECHNICAL APPROACH

(maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 14.4 14 14

Debbie Duke 14.4 10 13.8

Kay Ulmer 11.2

AVERAGE: 14.4 AVERAGE: 12 AVERAGE: 13

Community Involvement & Support (maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 12 12.4 14.2

Debbie Duke 15 12.4 12.4

Kay Ulmer 15

AVERAGE: 13.5 AVERAGE: 12.4 AVERAGE: 13.86

CognitiveBased Programming and Treatment Services (maximum §20) Rehab Services 13.6 12 12.8 BUDGET PROPOSAL (maximum: § 15)

SCORE: 11 SCORE: 15 SCORE: 12.6

TOTAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORE: (maximum: 100)

87 84.9 83.66

(6)

Providence Community Corrections Southeast Tennessee Community Corrections (Bradley Co.) Southeast Tennessee HRA GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE (maximum: § 17) Jacquelyn Baker 15 15 16 Debbie Duke 16 14 16

AVERAGE: 15.5 AVERAGE: 14.5 AVERAGE: 16 Documentation of Need

(maximum: § 18)

Jacquelyn Baker 16 12.2 14.2

Debbie Duke 14.6 18 17.6

AVERAGE: 15.3 AVERAGE: 15.1 AVERAGE: 15.9 TECHNICAL APPROACH

(maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 11.6 12.8 11.8

Debbie Duke 12.2 14.2 10.8

AVERAGE: 11.9 AVERAGE: 13.5 AVERAGE: 11.3

Community Involvement & Support (maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 6 15 11.6

Debbie Duke 3 12.4 12

AVERAGE: 4.5 AVERAGE: 13.7 AVERAGE: 11.8

CognitiveBased Programming and Treatment Services (maximum §20) Rehab Services 8 1.4 12.2 BUDGET PROPOSAL (maximum: § 15)

SCORE: 6.2 SCORE: 6.8 SCORE: 15

TOTAL PROPOSAL

(7)

PROPOSAL SCORE SUMMARY MATRIX

South Central HRA Upper Cumberland HRA

Westate Corrections Network GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE (maximum: § 17) Jacquelyn Baker 17 17 16 Debbie Duke 15 15 16

AVERAGE: 16 AVERAGE: 16 AVERAGE: 16 Documentation of Need

(maximum: § 18)

Jacquelyn Baker 16 14.6 18

Debbie Duke 18 17.2 15.6

AVERAGE: 17 AVERAGE: 15.9 AVERAGE: 16.8 TECHNICAL APPROACH

(maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 11.2 13.6 13

Debbie Duke 14 11 13.4

AVERAGE: 12.6 AVERAGE: 12.3 AVERAGE: 13.2

Community Involvement & Support (maximum: § 15)

Jacquelyn Baker 11.6 15 12.4

Debbie Duke 12.4 15 12

AVERAGE: 12 AVERAGE: 15 AVERAGE: 12.2

CognitiveBased Programming and Treatment Services (maximum §20) Rehab Services 13 17.4 17.4 BUDGET PROPOSAL (maximum: § 15)

SCORE: 11 SCORE: 13.4 SCORE: 12.2

TOTAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORE: (maximum: 100)

(8)

References

Related documents